Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    April 7, 2013 3:00pm-3:30pm PDT

3:00 pm
test, test, test, test, test test >> good afternoon welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors meeting of april the
3:01 pm
2. madam clerk please call the roll >> (clerk calling roll). mr. president, all members are present >> ladies and gentlemen please join us in pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america on >> could i have a motion to approve those minutes. without objection those minutes
3:02 pm
are approved >> no remarks mr. president. >> if a member objects a issue can be separated. >> we'll comment on items 1 though 7. >> clerk calling roll. there are 11 >> item 8 new business. >> it's a an ordinance
3:03 pm
appropriating 6 hundred and seven hundred thousand for the general fund. pursuant this appropriation is subject to two-thirds vote from members of board >> thank you very much. mr. president, and members i want to thank the members of the budget committee as well as a number of my colleagues who have been discussing this item with our public defenders office. and want to thank our public defenders and the board of supervisors. i'm going to make a motion to send this back to committee >> supervisor has made a motion to send back to committee. there any further discussion?
3:04 pm
i support the motion i think it's the right thing to do. this the budget committee was divided on this and since then i know there's been quite a bit discussion with the public defenders office and how to address this situation where the department has over sent its budget address i think we would like to have a resolution. but right now, i'm highly doubt full the supplemental will be supported today but i'm glad we're going to have another budget committee and i look forward to more dialog with the department to see if we can come to a resolution that allows us to address this issue and other
3:05 pm
budget issues. i hope those conversations are fruitful and we can come to a resolution >> any further discussion in are? >> i think there's a way we can find a resolution that works for everyone involved. the reality is that the city will end up being liable for a expenditure here. i look forward to that conversation >> one other thing i did say this in the budget committee. despite the somewhat contentious nature i think a lot of us have the respect for the public defenders office which they play a critical roll in our justice
3:06 pm
system but also in the caliber of work that's universally accepted and this is really an issue around the budget and how best to address the current situation. >> with that is there any further discussion? i want to take a moment to recognize the chief assistant who's in our chamber today. without objection this motion will be referred back to the budget committee. item 9 >> it's a financial plan for focus years 2014 through 2018. >> that is one of our if you ever planning tools we're also going to have the 10 year
3:07 pm
planning on april 10th. last week our finance budget person brought up our deficit. and we're looking at better times but we have to look at short term and long-term times and look to ways to grow our revenues. i hope we can adopt this by may first and hope to have your support on this and colleagues can we adopt this resolution? >> it's adopted. >> this is multi funding housing not to exceed 29 million for a multi rental housing
3:08 pm
project. >> this resolution is adapted. >> item 11 is an item as housing agency to the rae development agency to amend with broadway for the development and operation of affordable housing at 255 broadway and making findings. >> this resolution is adopted. item 12 >> it's providing for a sale of interests in the rights to receive rental payments to finance capital payments at the moscone center and this resolution is adopted. >> item 13 is a resolution finding that 12 thousand square feet is acceptable for the law
3:09 pm
liable at 1200 van ness boulevard. >> thank you president including this came up again last week was a bit of a contiguous group. there are others who understand the importance of the law library. it's a law that requires that our law library is suitable space. right now the law library is in the memorial building. previously it was housed here in city hall and the memorial building is is going to be closed and all tenants have to be out by july. it's going to cost the city
3:10 pm
hundreds of dollars a month. this is suitable and sufficient and is going to a delegate the department to finalize the lease. they determined 22 thousand feet was sufficient and it includes compacting shelving for the law library. this passes unanimously. the controversies arose from the advocates they have thirty to 35 thousand square feet of space. this included a request that we house a volumes for the law library. and from my prospective were
3:11 pm
facing increased costs over $5,000 and not particle sure at this time this we should be paying to house additional rare books that the law library is requesting. the law library has raised zero fund on their own. this 20, 25 square feet we're signing the lease for although it has additional space they can rent additional space but from my prospective it is very adequate and especially, as we know new and new generations of law people are using less and less of square space.
3:12 pm
now the city is being suited not allowing us to remove the memory relay building and this is going to cost the city of san francisco hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars and this is i have. i hope to move this item forward >> thank you, mr. president and, you know, the law library is one of those issues that's been with us ever since i've been selected and we've been hypodermic needle this and certainly the mayor's office and a number of other people and i appreciate and respect the
3:13 pm
prospective it seems most of my colleagues on this issue. i do have a certain going forward. i'm not sure the way that a law library of this type should be funded. it's, you know, under the current structure right now but the reality the charter has certain obligations placed under the city. i do think that supervisor farrell said it is unfortunate there hasn't been private funding or private fundraising to offset the costs but right now the charter requires us to provide adequate space.
3:14 pm
i'm not sure i understand the context. i appreciate the staff has worked very hard to find what they believe it priority space. there's still a difference of opinion here. i think that law libraries play a very special roll in the life of a city. the trend is to do most of the legal work on line. by you value the city in that it has a large percentage of pro per individuals who are doing work in the courts who are representing themselves. i think the fact that people are able to do this in do is something we should be proud of. and those individuals may not be
3:15 pm
able to have online resources so for them the hard copies the actual documents in a law library maybe needed. so i'm not thank you point that i truly believe that the proposal before us meets our obligations under the charter. but you have questions and i think that one question that i have is and maybe it is a question to staff through the chair why do we need to act on this today? and can we take the time to negotiate with the law library and see if there's a resolution. >> good afternoon board.
3:16 pm
john updike supervisor of real estate. so with respect to the litigation that was mentioned. we have a hearing before a judge on friday. of this week. and so it the most beneficial in the cities position it unequivocal so we want to move into the hearing relevant to the city's needs >> why is it important to us to have an unequivocal position before the meeting. >> i'm not sure if i want to turn to the deputy city attorney and just as a thought in addition to the issue that mr.
3:17 pm
indike mentioned there's also cost issues with the quick resolution for the location of the law library. but as to the litigation it's been the departments position in communication with our office and who we've retained that the space offered to the law library is sufficient and meets all the city's obligations under the charter and state law. the resolution he contains an express finding of the board as the policymaker in this - on this decision that the space meets the city's obligations. so we would recommend the board
3:18 pm
pass this today >> why are we voting on this - how many days are we away from the hearing? >> the hearing t is friday. >> i don't understand that if it's so critical to our legal case why are revoting on this foyer days before the hearing and if i may expand on that. it's not the only driver for the speed here it's also the market dynamics. we're competing are other interested parties in this space sow from any prospective if we're not able to make an ocean to the lease at least we have
3:19 pm
ended the prospective of location. it's now a question of size. i'd hate to see that opportunity go past us. the tint is very hot we're competing in an active marketplace >> in terms of what are we supposed to provide the law library? >> again, it's chapter section 8.103 we shall provide sufficient quarters and fix up and furnish the same and other request conveniences. it shall be available to other officers of the court.
3:20 pm
if i may take your other ideas the nvktd the resolution isn't a required finding gone u just wanted to be clear about that but in our papers submitted to the court we argued and presented that the city has in good faith attempted over a long period of time to provide law library adequate suitable space. and the proposal that's been offered by the department is the best option to how the law library at this time close to the chiropractor with adequate space >> so if it's not a required finding as i said i don't see
3:21 pm
the danger of waiting. we could have on friday that the court could decide that we violated our obligations under the charter they could decide the other way. but we're four days from the court deciding that issue i don't understand - it's been four years that we've been dealing with this. i don't understand the urgency. >> thank you. i actually have is a different set of concerns regarding the law library. one was on what we deem suitable and sufficient for the law library seeing that we currently provided the law library with 12 thousand 8 hundred and 6 square
3:22 pm
feet why don't we meet that resolution. does that mean we weren't providing adequate lay library space in the past years? we could still move forward with that with 20 thousand square feet and find it suitable and sufficient for the law library >> chair, supervisor kim. i believe with respect to the statements about the existing conditions i think those are statements of fact i don't think the city was trying to take a position it's not the issue where respect to the filing of the court. it's just a statement because i think that context is helpful for the board to making the
3:23 pm
decision what have they operated over the past 18 years >> the lease before us initially offers 16 hundred and 33 square feet though with the option to grow the 35 feet so would i want it be suitable for the law library since that's what we're offering them. >> but the resolution is worded in a way that their married with the two issues in the case. i believe it is no greater than 20 thousand square feet and by taking the action before the board today your ratifying the terms and conditions of the briefing as well so there isn't a disconnect between the issues
3:24 pm
>> i feel uncomfortable with that number. i get it could be less than 20 thousand square feet but i think we can provided a lease that is greater than and not make that the number we determine as the board of supervisors. i come you know, i did finally visit the law library and i found the people who were actually reaching the law all of them were on the computers and if not there's a greater need to increase the term analyze they have. i'm curious i know there were questions by the members of the budget members that we look at
3:25 pm
ways to partner with other law libraries whether they be the choirs or the main library. that was the main suggestion that the committee pushed the administrators office and the budget of office of real estate. i'm curious i have to question even as it's assessable as the current main law library site why we respect to a larger space that has no resources for the lay. that is $559,000 more than we're currently paying and how can we best share our resources. i'm worried we are under
3:26 pm
utilizesings our law library with staffing. happy to address those questions. first with respect to the partisanship with the mayor's office and a variety of others to explore opportunity with the - the director was involved with those discussions and other you institutions like other collaborations. it does not have any fruit >> with whom did you explore those locations. >> whether it was herrera or those discussions were had at
3:27 pm
the highest levels of the institutions involved. this was no not a location found by the city staff. it was a deal struck by the library and their brokers who presented it to the city for the city's approval and review as an adequate location it was outside the original search. that is admittedly far from the court location and served by transit and it's proximate in that respect but in response this is a law library location selection when i think helped foster a positive agreement as to location. and lastly menace the issue of
3:28 pm
providing services in different ways so the current footprint as suggested by staff to have the public place assessable to the public. there about 50 to 55 volumes assessable to the public so this increases the volume and more importantly s it increases the numbers of seats by ziploc internet assess so we'll be able to provide a better venue for computer research. there's certify space for staff at the law library so that's why we suggested that the resolution
3:29 pm
accommodates not only the 0 needs but increases their ability to deliver services. >> my last question. do you worry personally that if we set our spice that that will be the bar when we engage in this discussion again about where the law library will be. so if we determine that less space it needed and we negotiate it leased and 20 thousand is the number we set and we should stick to the number. i understand the language is no greater than gone if we don't have